Be not afraid

I have heard it said that the first victim of war is truth; I would like to posit that the first victim of modern materialism is courage. Oh, there is enough bravado and swaggering to fill the pages of “Soldier of Fortune” magazine for decades to come. There are enough brave individuals receiving Orders of Canada and lifesaving awards to keep plaque makers comfortably engaged. But bravery is not courage in the same way that cowardice is not fear.

How do we then contrast bravery and courage? We do not usually refer to ‘acts of courage’ but ‘acts of bravery’ since courage is played out over time and bravery is usually episodic. Courage emerges from character while bravery is a response to circumstance. An example might be children enduring series of procedures in the course of cancer treatment: they exemplify courage in their ongoing struggle against the disease and their determination to survive but they display bravery each time they face another painful procedure.

Is one superior to the other? Is it better to be brave than courageous? How does one answer this without straying into politically incorrect territory given the current ascendancy of sacrifices of the battlefield and the obsession of the media with the creation of heroes? And it’s not quite that simple considering, if we accept the argument proposed above, that they are different while being complementary. My own feeling is that I would rather live in a society of courageous people than a society of brave people. I would rather be surrounded by people who have the courage not to fight than by those who would be willing to risk their lives for me. Having said that, if there is no alternative but to fight, I would be hopeful that my courageous neighbours would back up their courage with a little bravery.

But I digress. Courage is the first victim of materialism. Having (sort of) sorted out courage, how do I see materialism and how do I see it as a source of discouragement? Christ said, “Put not your stores where moth and rust corrupt.” That putting is materialism. It involves judging people (another no no), including ourselves by what they have rather than what they are or do. It is the acquisition of goods (which moth and rust corrupt) not for their necessity but for what they represent and what they say about us to the world. It is finding pleasure in things rather than people – and, perhaps, a compensation for our loss of relationships and closeness. The old saw about how we should use things and love people although we tend to get it bass-ackwards has never been more true.

So how does materialism erode courage? Because courage often threatens material well-being. How courageous can an employee allow himself/herself to be when doing the courageous thing will get him/her fired, demoted or blacklisted? How many middle managers will question dehumanizing corporate policies when they know that to do so is career suicide? How many coworkers will stand up for a fellow employee who is being bullied, and risk having the negative attention focused on them as well? From my experience, very few. And the fear and reluctance of the majority come largely from an unwillingness to jeopardize the income that keeps the toys and things coming in.

So is anything going to change any time soon? Not too likely. With the current ascendancy of conservatism in this country and much of the world and the ‘just lucky to have a job’ idiocy of so many people, we can expect the incidences of courage to become rarer yet. The recent revelations (or ‘allegations’ if you’re a PC) by Richard Colvin and the predictable character assassination by the government are incidents – in the case of the former – that give some hope but contrast sharply with what I have perceived at the level of the workplace. Personal integrity and courage, although lauded when they see the light of day, are too often sacrificed to expediency, safety, and maintenance of the status quo which ensures our affluence and well-being. It’s a shame that we are too human to be humane.